,/Y7 ^ 



New York State Education Department 
Attendance Division 

James D. Sullivan, Chief 



DISCUSSION ON THE COMPULSORY SCHOOL AT- 
TENDANCE LAW 

By James D. Sullivan 

At the convention of the State Probation Commission in the city 
of Albany. December 31, 1910, with city magistrates and probation 
officers in attendance. 



We are very largely dependent upon courts of justice in our en- 
deavor to enforce attendance laws. In fact, 1 do not see how we are 
going to get results at all without the hearty cooperation of the 
courts. In many quarters of the State the courts, with commend- 
able courage and good judgment, have done much to secure proper 
respect for this statute. The law has been upon the statute books 
about fifteen years and though a drastic measure, it has presumably 
done more for the educational welfare of the State than any other 
single measure enacted by the Legislature. In the beginning prog- 
ress under this statute was slow, courts avoided it and even school 
authorities did not want to meddle with it very much. All this for 
lack of public sentiment, but public sentiment ripened gradually 
and favorably and the conviction has already taken deep root in the 
public mind that every child within the borders of the State has an 
inherent right to a common school education. With ripened public 
sentiment and an honest purpose on the part of authorities to do 
their duty, the law is found to be easily operated. 

Under this statute every child between certain ages, physically and 
mentally competent, is required to be in school during a certain 
period of the year and the parent or the one in parental relation is 
required to have such child there. " The one hundred and one " 
excuses brought into court by the one in parental relation 
to justify him in keeping his child out of school should never be 
seriously considered by the court and can not be if the court is to 
base its decisions upon the statute and facts. If the child is 
" physically and mentally competent " his place is in school. 

C4r-Di 1-5000 (7-10974) 






Last year, the school year that closed in July last, there were 
twenty cities of considerable size in this State where not a single 
parent had been either fined or sent to jail for violation of the at- 
tendance law, though 245 persons were arrested and brought into 
court on the charge of violating this statute. Let us analyze these 
figures. Let us admit that some of these cases were not accom- 
panied by sufficient and proper evidence to warrant convic- 
tion. Let us further admit that attendance officers charged with 
the enforcement of law are sometimes lacking in intelligence and 
judgment and for the lack of such intelligence bring persons into 
court without sufficient proof to warrant conviction, or, if proof ap- 
pears to be sufficient, it is brought before the court in such an irreg- 
ular and unusual manner as not to be available. Another group of 
these cases was well cared for by the probation system. But I sub- 
mit, is it not remarkable that in the entire batch of 245 cases in 
twenty cities, some having a population of 100,000, not a single 
parent was either fined or sent to jail? It goes without saying, and 
proof is not lacking of the fact, that the law was not enforced in 
many of these cities, though hundreds of children who should have 
been in school were allowed to run the streets. We say to school 
authorities, " If you do not look after the enforcement of this law 
the State Commissioner of Education is in duty bound to withhold 
Slate aid from your city." School authorities come back at us and 
say, " We are willing to do our duty but we can not get proper 
action on the part of the courts." 

In a city not a hundred miles from Niagara Falls the Education 
Department encountered serious difficulty in an endeavor to enforce 
attendance laws. The city to which I refer had one of the best 
school boards in the State ; the superintendent of schools was an 
intelligent, conscientious, alert man and the attendance officer was 
a man of good judgment and force. The president of the board 
was one of the best lawyers in the State, yet the law in that city was 
a dead letter. The president of the school board said to me, " We 
can not enforce the attendance law in this city. When we have done 
our utmost as a board of education and get the attendance ma- 
chinery fairly in operation, so far as the board is concerned, we are 
held up later by the local courts. Our judge will not punish delin- 
quent parents." I said, " Make test cases in your court for the 
next thirty days. Get before the court on every case in which you 
have sufficient evidence to warrant conviction and which would se- 
cure conviction with a judge willing to do his duty." This is what 

a ftp 



happened : out of 98 cases, and each one a good one. in that evi- 
dence was ample to warrant conviction, only two persons were con- 
victed, and two fines imposed, one of one dollar and one of fifty 
cents. 

In a second conference with the president of this school board I 
remarked, " If you were the State Commissioner of Education what 
would you do with this city ? " He said, " I would withhold public 
school moneys as the statute provides and I advise that it be done, 
notwithstanding the fact that I am president of the school board 
and realize that the board will be seriously hampered when it comes 
to the paying of our teachers, as we are largely dependent upon 
Slate school moneys for the payment of teachers' wages. However, 
wc will borrow the money and it will not be long before the tax- 
payers of the city will determine who is responsible for the loss of 
its funds." The Commissioner of Education promptly issued the 
order Withholding school moneys from that city. Newspapers of 
the city had much to say about the person who was responsible for 
the loss of such moneys. The court hastened to find shelter under 
various excuses but the day of grace had been sinned away. Tax- 
payers and electors " got even " with the court at the next election. 
In that same city there were 94 people arraigned last year for the 
violation of the attendance law and 46 were properly fined. The 
year preceding there were 55 arrested and 25 fined. This shows 
marked improvement. The present court in that city has estab- 
lished a wholesome respect for this law. Xow parents in that city 
understand that if they rob their children of their rights to attend- 
ance at school, proper punishment is pretty certain to follow. EIow 
can other courts aid in the enforcement of the attendance law ? By 
doing exactly with delinquent parents what is being done now in 
the city to which T have referred : so promptly and severely punish 
them that they will be glad to obey the law. 

The persons who usually violate the attendance law may be di- 
vided into three classes: 

1 The class represented by the man who is brought into court 
charged with keeping his child out of school for work. In this case 
evidence ample to convict is not lacking, for one of the primary pur- 
poses had in mind by the Legislature in the enactment of the law 
was to prevent parents from keeping children out of school for work 
at a period of life when they should be getting a common school 
education. Yet it often develops in the trial that the defendant 
charged with keeping his child out of school for work is a poor 



man with many mouths to feed on a small income ; or apparently 
even more serious, the defendant may be a widow with a large 
family to be cared for out of her daily wages. When this class of 
cases is brought into court the court apparently loses sight of the 
requirements of the statute and the educational rights of the child 
and immediately, either from largeness of heart or lack of judicial 
temperament, decides in favor of the parent. Such a decision is 
rarely in accordance with the facts and the statute. In truth, he 
reads into the statute what is not there and reads out of it a de- 
cision that is not supported by either statute or evidence. I sub- 
mit, if it is right for these poor parents to keep their unfortunate 
children out of school and thus rob them of their chances for a 
common school education, the Legislature should so amend the stat- 
ute that this big-hearted judge will be able to render a decision in 
accordance with law and facts. But so long as the statute remains 
as it now stands the court has absolutely no right to render a de- 
cision not supported by both law and evidence. Many of you 
judges doubtless think it would not only be cruel but the height of 
folly to impose a fine upon such a parent, a poor man, from the 
fact that he may have no money with which to pay his fine and you 
reason that matters would not be helped very much by sending him 
to jail. All that may be true, but the business of the court in the 
administration of the law is to keep steadily in mind the rights of 
the child. The law was made for the child and not for the parent. 

A 13-year old boy can often earn a man's wages. The question 
is often asked, " Are you going to deprive a poor parent of the 
wage-earning capacity of such a child by forcing him into school 
and thus making it necessary for both the parent and child to go to 
the poormaster ? " That whole question was thrashed out in the 
Legislature when the bill embodying the attendance law was pend- 
ing before that body and it was fully determined by the enactment 
of the law that every child was entitled to a common school educa- 
tion without regard to the poverty or other unfortunate conditions 
of the parent. The child is not to blame because his parent is poor. 
The misfortunes of the parent must not be put upon the child and 
it is the business of the court to take the law as it stands and en- 
force its provisions regardless of consequences to either parent or 
child. 

2 Here conies into court class number two. This class presents 
a more aggravated case than class number one. The parent, when 



arraigned and charged with violation of the law, says to the judge, 
'" Yes, my child is out of school and has been but I supposed he was 
in school." Now, the truth is, this parent represents that large 
class of shiftless and worthless parents who do not take time or 
trouble to know where their children are half the time. In fact, 
they do not care. This sort of parent shirks totally the responsi- 
bility that rests upon him in regard to his own child. He is in duty 
bound to know where his child is from day to day and if he exer- 
cises proper interest in the child he would know. Therefore, every 
time this sort of man is brought into court he should be punished 
so severely and promptly that he will recognize his parental 
responsibility. 

3 Every day we are committing crimes in this State against chil- 
dren under the Compulsory Education Law by arresting and bring- 
ing into court unfortunate children found out of school when the 
parent is the one who should be arrested and prosecuted. Why is 
this done? Simply because it is easier to arrest a defenseless child 
and drag him into court than it is his worthless father. The child 
has no one to stand for him ; the father, though he be a worthless 
sort of man, has at least a vote and sometimes a sort of political 
pull. Yet in 99 cases out of 100 the parent is the real criminal. 
Last year we arrested over 8000 of these unfortunate children in this 
State. We called them " truant " children but a child is never a 
truant until he is beyond the absolute control of the parent who is 
doing his utmost to manage and control the child. The fact is that 
we have but very few truant children. There is a vast difference 
between a truant child who is out of school and the child who is 
out of school with the knowledge and consent of the parent. For 
every child who may be justly classed as a truant you will find a 
hundred criminally delinquent parents. Then why not arrest the 
parent instead of the child? Last year we sent to correctional in- 
stitutions 1200 children but we put only 38 parents in jail. These 
figures should be reversed. We do not find very many truant chil- 
dren if we see to it that delinquent parents are made by legal proc- 
ess responsible for their own offspring. More and more must we 
make the penalty of this law run against rJ.e parent and less against 
the child. Over in Germany these penalties under the attendance 
law invariably run against the parent and very seldom against the 
child and as a result the parent in Germany seldom violates the law, 
and if he does he is punished so quickly and severely that he never 
forgets it. 



Following a speech by Judge Brady, Mr Sullivan spoke as follows: 
Judge Brady is entirely right when he says that at times the 
magistrate is confronted with a most difficult situation, especially 
when the offender is a widow with small income and a large family 
of children. Yet the law, even in this case, requires children to be 
in school, although the mother is apparently in need of the wages 
that the child could earn. The law was enacted almost exclusively 
in the interests of the children of the poor and had it not been for 
this very class of children doubtless we never would have needed 
this drastic measure. 

It seems to me in connection with cases of this kind, instead of 
sending the mother to the poor department and thus pauperizing 
mother and children, that the judge should be empowered to 
order that the mother should be paid an amount equivalent to the 
wage-earning capacity of the child, inasmuch as the child is forced 
into school. This method of disposing of cases of this character 
would constitute paternalism, but what valid objection can there be 
to that so long as it would be the kind of paternalism for which 
every right-minded person, having the welfare of mother and child 
at heart, could easily stand ? 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



llll 
029 487 003 9 



I 



